Thanks, guys, you've ruined Haste for the rest of us.

[Shalewind]

As I have just pointed out in the DR thread:

All the Haste Haters here are very bothered that the wizards seem to be getting shafted. "We can't do as much damage anymore. The Fighters out match us."

Well, the Anti-DRers over at the DR thread are bothered that the fighters are getting shafted. "We can't do as much damage anymore. The Wizards out match us."

Well. Putting 2 and 2 together here... This seems to be a balance issue in action.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Wizards able to do the same amount of damage as a fighter are UNBALANCED. Dealing out damage is the fighter's main (and arguably only) specialty. Wizards have an amazing, truly stupendous variety of abilities if you take all the spells into account.

If you're an unimaginative player whose only use for a wizard is to make him a mobile artillery platform, then of course they'll end up weak. If you get creative with your spells, you'll find that wizards are still the most powerful class out there.

This is a rather deluded view of how it is supposed to work.

The fighter's speciality is melee damage over an unlimited amount of time. A fighter will do more aggregate damage than any other class in the group. A fighter will kill more enemies and a fighter never exhausts their power supply.That does not mean a fighter should always outdamage a wizard or caster.

Wizards and other casters should be able to a larger amount of short term damage. They should also be able to greatly outdamage a fighter when the circumstances permit such as when a large group of low hit point creatures are close together for a fireball.

A wizards specialty is magic. Magic really has no limits. It is hard to balance a force such as magic while trying to make a viable melee class. In fact, it is nigh on impossible if your goal is to balance the power of the two classes.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: re

This is a rather deluded view of how it is supposed to work.

Sez you. You know you sound like a [insighful remark and wisdom censored by Henry--just because I can, punk. Don't cross me again--ever!] ...step away from the keyboard, take a breather. Doesn't that feel better?

Magic really has no limits. It is hard to balance a force such as magic while trying to make a viable melee class. In fact, it is nigh on impossible if your goal is to balance the power of the two classes.

Oh! I see! Okay, everybody, we can stop this discussion right now since Celtavian has pointed out that there's really no way to balance the two classes.

What a relief. Here I was thinking this thread had a point.

 

[Pax]

Umm, no. A 20 Strength raging barbarian with a Belt of Giant Strength +4 has a base Strength modifier of +9.

Ah; I did indeed forget to calculate in the Belt; my apologies.

20 Strength = +5 modifier
+4 Rage = +2 modifier
+4 Belt = +2 modifier

That is a base Strength modifier of +9, multiplied by 1.5 gives you +13.

The character's total damage per attack is 2d6+17, like I said. Perhaps you shouldn't talk about people getting calculations wrong when you didn't actually work them out right yourself.[/b][/quote]

Perhaps you should be less rancorous, given I was not accusatory (I had thought it was a simple miscalculation). WITHOUT the belt, my calculations were exactly accurate -- mine was an error of oversight.

Do try to be less needlessly unkind if such occurs in the future, hmm?

This is already accounted for in the calculations I gave, the average damage for a hit by this character is 30. The average damage per attack against a typical AC of 21 is 23.5 (including the calculations for lowered to hit chances).

Your average damage per hit, does not translate directly into average damage per SWING. As you just stated now, your per-swing average damage is 23.5hp -- 6.5hp short.

So ... very close, and I wouldn't want to engage that ... frothing lawnmower ... in melee with any but a few VERY specialised characters ... but still no cigar.

I've already addressed the fallacy in your argument that the damage was miscalculated. The issue here is that it is relatively easy to get an average damage of 30 poiints of damage per hit, which was what you challenged.

No, I challenged an average damage of 30 per swing, for four to five swings, giving 120 to 150 average damage per round. And the implicit implication that this shoudl be considered at all "standard" for a fighter-type character.

A +6 Strength enhancing item is standard in the DMG, I only used a +4 Strength enhancing item. If you assume the use of GMW and a +6 Strength enhancing item, the damage totals go up, a lot.

You used a +4, and I forgot that item in my calculations. Fine.

However, from NO item, to an item which DID bring you up where you'dneed to be, you need a single item which grants +12 strength -- +8 more than the item you did list ... !! And that is Epic.

BAB +11, Strength +10, Magic +5, Focus +1 = +27/+22/+17

Damage = 2d6 + 15 (Strength) +5 (Magic) +2 Specialization = 29 per hit before criticals (average damage per round without accounting for criticals = ~76).

Even giving a full extra damage allotment for occasional criticals (upping average-crits-per-round from 0.6 to 1.0 -- IOW nearly doubling them), that's ... 105 damage. For three swings. A bit short of the 120 mark, sorry.

Accounting for criticals: ~33.3 points of damage per attack or ~100 points of damage per round. (That is 36.25 points of damage per hit on average).

And that would be a full 20 points short. Still no cigar.

 

[Pax]

I didn't say "wizards suck". I said wizards can't keep up with the damage that fighters do. This was meant to imply, as others picked up on, that this makes wizards pick only "save or die" spells, which is somewhat bland.

Only if their area-of-effect spells are chucked at single-target enemies. Get just FOUR baddies into the AoE, get off two spells (quicken, Rod ofquickening, whatever), and the Wizard's damage becomes better than the fighter's -- with the tired old fireball, no less.

Just FOUR targets in that fireball's AoE, Simon. Four.

Let us not even contemplate the horrors that are Twin Spell, and/or Repeat Spell.

For the 120 to 150 points of damage, my personal experience has been with an archer character who is both a Deepwoods Sniper and an Order of the Initiate of the Bow. "Core Rules Only" fanatics might not accept that as valid, but he does way more damage than my Incantatrix ever could. And that's with "Old Haste".

First off, many people have claimed the OoBI and DWS are potentially among the least-balanced, most-powerful PrC's out there.

Secondly, that archer is HARDLY a typical fighter. HARDLY.

Incantatrix is hardly an uber-combat PrC, IMO. Nice, but not neccessarily the absolute best you can find. Given the right situation, a Sorceror / War Wizard of Cormyr can pump out vast quantities of damage. Firebrand, with just 4 "Super" Widens freely applied. If we presuppose 12th level (the minimum to get all the WWoC's abilities -- so, Sorceror (7) / WWoC (5)), then Firebrand (Sor/Wiz 5, MoF; Evocation [Fire]) ... the base spell gives you a number of 5-foot-bursts equal to your caster level, doing 1d6 per caster level (max of 15d6). Overlapping bursts do not increase damage.

12 bursts. With just the 4 super-widen metamagicks (WWoC get +100% instead of +50% from Widen), they become 25-foot bursts.

12 of them. Essentially making a 12d6 scattershot of fireballs.

Or 14 of them, at 14th level, each doing 14d6 -- and a 14th level Sorceror has 7th level spells, letting him also EMPOWER the Firebrand ... for 14d6x1.5 per burst (21-126 damage, averages to 73.5). Granted, getting off two of those at once, in the absence of 3.0 haste, would require a Greater Rod of Quickening (T&B), but ...

Or just maximise a Fireball, and apply those super-Widens to it. 100-foot radius, 60 (save for 30). DC easily in the 25-30 range.

[...] If his three attacks hit, that's 73.5 points of damage. And that's without min-maxing really.

It's also a BIG "if", that "if his three attacks hit".

Give him a weapon which is a base +1 flaming shocking frost weapon (with GMW later cast on top of that), that will add another 3d6 (average 10.5) damage per hit, adding 31.5 per round, for a total of 105 points of damage per round.

And IMO the above is laughable -- you claim fighters are better than wizards (and by extension other spellcasters), then use A CAST SPELL to support the position? FEH. No GMW for you. No anything which said character couldn't do/acquire on his own.

Y'see, any extra damage caused by extra hits gained throught he GMW -- is at least half the result of the GMW caster's action.

Further, I do not believe a sword CAN be both flaming AND frost at once. It doesn't make logical sense, and as a GM I'd quash that on principle.

However, MoF has two additional +1d6[element] tags, so ... *shrug*

Hmm, so now I need to justify another 15 points of damage, huh? If I say "power attack for 5, for three attacks" that would do it, but then someone would counter that his other attacks might not hit. Let's see... what else can I add to him...

You would, indeed, hit less often. Well less.

[...] an increase of only +1 point per hit, for a total of 114 points of damage per round.

No. Not per round. Per three hits. The characetr in question is not guaranteed to score all three hits.

So, that makes his total damage per round an average of 130.5. No splatbooks, no non-core rules. How's that?

14th level? Try him against .... say, AC35. Let's see how often he hits, and how often he crits; THEN we can know an average damage-per-round. Your numbers above take WAY too much for granted.

Oh, and keep in mind, all that presupposes he gets a full attack. Which won't always be the case ...

 

[Henry]

Let's keep this civil, please. I know heated discussion causes emotions to run high, but insulting people is a quick way to end the discussion. My mind is telling me this discussion is starting to run a little long as it is.

 

[SimonMoon5]

And IMO the above is laughable -- you claim fighters are better than wizards (and by extension other spellcasters), then use A CAST SPELL to support the position? FEH. No GMW for you. No anything which said character couldn't do/acquire on his own.

Y'see, any extra damage caused by extra hits gained throught he GMW -- is at least half the result of the GMW caster's action.

When does a fighter walk around by himself? Well, if he has to, no problem. He purchases one of those cheap ioun stones of spell storing and pays someone to cast GMW into it. Or, heck, just cut out the ioun stone and pay someone to cast GMW. All that requires is money. He can do that by himself unless he is somehow in the vacuum of space by himself or something... If he can acquire magic items, he can acquire spells.


Re: 130.5 points of damage per round...

No. Not per round. Per three hits. The characetr in question is not guaranteed to score all three hits.

Yes, if he hits. Just like a wizard can cast a mighty cone of cold for 25 points of damage... *if* it gets through spell resistance. Since that won't happen half the time, that's actually only about an average of 12 points of damage... from a freakin' fifth level spell.

And, actually, there were some errors in my damage calculation. I forgot two things: Great sword is 2d6 not d10, so his average damage should increase by 1.5 * 3 = 4.5, making it 135 points of damage per round. Plus, I forgot that the whole point of this thread is that Haste still works for fighters; in fact, the PC I based this example character on already has Boots of Speed. So, let's add a fourth attack's damage to the total, making it 180 points of damge total. Now, since he would miss on a roll of "1", let's take away 5% of that damage, reducing him to only 171 points of damage per round.

So, against an opponent with an AC of 22 or less, he averages 171 points of damage per round.

14th level? Try him against .... say, AC35. Let's see how often he hits, and how often he crits; THEN we can know an average damage-per-round. Your numbers above take WAY too much for granted.

I don't think that an AC of 35 is typical for monster of his level. For PCs maybe, but not for monsters. I'll check and come back.

I also snipped your wizard example because it's not using the same conditions I am. My example barbarian/fighter is core rules only. I would appreciate wizard counter-examples being core rules only. Otherwise, I'll pull out a "typical" Deepwoods Sniper/Initiate of the Order of the Bow.

And I still disagree with the claim that damage to multiple opponents is as useful as the total damage being done to one individual. A fireball might do 1000 points of damage if it lands on a Creeping Doom, but do not tell me that fireballs are as good as a fighter who can do 1000 points of damage a round.


Edit: after looking through the SRD version of the Monster Manual (well, up through E anyway), I find only a few creatures of CR 14 or below which have an AC above 22: hezrou with AC 26, Gelugon AC 28, Vrock AC 25, Cornugon AC 25, Elder/Greater Air Elemental AC 27/26, Elder/Greater Fire Elemental AC 25/24... and some celestials which seem a bit atypical: trumpet archon AC 27 and Astral Deva AC 29.

So, I'll compromise and assume an average AC of 26. Well, since the example barbarian's attacks are at +30/+30/+25/+20, and since I've already taken into account the 5% miss chance for rolling a "1" in his 171 points of damage per round, that means that the only additional miss chances come from that +20 attack, which misses an additional 25% of the time. So, I'll subtract 25% of one attack's damage (effectively subtracting 1/16 of the 171 points of damage), which results in a new average of 160.3125 points of damage per round against a typical opponent with an AC of 26.

 

[LokiDR]

I think a lot the problems many people here are having with the change in haste is based on how they play mages. They seem to want to be moble artilery with damage above the fighter for a short time. Is that what you want, or do I have it wrong?

In the 15th level game I am playing in now, the archer cleric (staple gun) does the most damage by far. The evoke incantantrix has a hard time catching up with the current haste. Is this a problem? No, because the evoker can dominate, finger of death, ect. And he as taken out small armies with firebrand. A triple empowered firebrand at 14 targets is terify sight to behold, especially 2 in one round. The archer can't beat that.

The archer also can't beat my defensenes. I am a different wizard with normal AC of 67, always invisible, immune to death effects/energy drain/magic missle, and the first element that hits me. Staple gun sits at AC 30something.

I don't see mages as straight damage machines. Melee or archer clerics are better suited to that. I see mages as filling those roles that adventuring requires, but others can't do. Movement (speed, flying, water), invisibility (for and against), large hordes of weak creatures, buff spells, and save-or-die spells. This is fine for me, and it doesn't require extra spells.

The artilery mage only works well if they do get the extra spell, but don't get all the buffing spells. If you get it all, there is no stoping you.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

As I have just pointed out in the DR thread:

All the Haste Haters here are very bothered that the wizards seem to be getting shafted. "We can't do as much damage anymore. The Fighters out match us."

Well, the Anti-DRers over at the DR thread are bothered that the fighters are getting shafted. "We can't do as much damage anymore. The Wizards out match us."

Well. Putting 2 and 2 together here... This seems to be a balance issue in action.

And then there are I think at least the majority of us in thse threads who are more conearned with how this will likely narrow that tactics of the party. If damaging spells become less useful people will use more save or dies(no diversity, and boring), if the DR changes go in, people will either carry a golf bag of weaponry and or switch to two handed weapon style(again no diversity and boring).

Add in that for haste some of us think the new spell is just a really sucky 3d level spell so it isn't a fix, and that their reason is lame because well quicken didn't get used much because quicken sucks.

Add in that for DR people are starting to wonder about compatability issues and the ease to house rule the new DR, and you have tons of legitimite complaints. So it can't jsut be handwaved off with hey there both geting shafted, "balance"

 

[Shalewind]

Well that's about it for me. We could argue until July about "what if", no? We could assume things that WoTC is doing and we could guess about the balances and styles of play that will result. I find in quite ridiculous that people will flay an idea alive before seeing all the factors. So I guess we'll just see in July. I'm done debating a circular argument here with those that will not see all the information is not out there yet and a real conclusion can't be formed.

Peace.